You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?

I'd be down with that if it meant you got off the internet permanently and stuck with exercising the 1st Amendment via means used when the 1st was written.

Another responsible gun owner that deserves to have their right protected.

You know what, we do not need to ever get rid of anyone's 2nd amendment rights. All we need to do is start charging idiots with felonies for stuff like this. You know, enforce laws and stuff. That will get rid of 90% of the idiots and solve 95% of the problem.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

I have a single-shot Airsoft pistol and Daisy Model 25. Puss.

You'll shoot your eye out!

I bought my brother a coffee table book about Daisy air rifles for Christmas, and finally found out what "this thing that tells time" is. The Buck Jones model (not the Red Ryder) had a compass in the stock and sundial markings on it.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

I have a single-shot Airsoft pistol and Daisy Model 25. Puss.

You'll shoot your eye out!

I bought my brother a coffee table book about Daisy air rifles for Christmas, and finally found out what "this thing that tells time" is. The Buck Jones model (not the Red Ryder) had a compass in the stock and sundial markings on it.

EyeballKid:umad: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

umad:EyeballKid: umad: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

coeyagi:Dimensio: coeyagi: tblax: My favorite part about these threads is all the gun nerds flipping a tit over terms

Exactly. OMG, they said "Assault Rifle", and it's NOT an assault rifle, therefore the gun owner was completely responsible and the article writer is the irresponsible one!

Deflection is all they have.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all? Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible. I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma. You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads. FYI.

First off, there is no discussion to be had around "the owner was irresponsible". That is a given fact. If that is all we talked about the entire thread would be: "The owner was irresponsible" followed by 500 "I know, right?".

Second, it isn't an agenda. It is actually an anti-agenda, an unorganized attempt to slow someone else from achieving their actual agenda. Other than a few excessively pedantic gun-owners, the same as you have in any group, nobody would mention this misuse if it weren't for the agenda of the Gun-grabbers. The grabbers have been pushing the use of Assault Weapon and misuse of Assault Rifle into the mainstream media and public consciousness for the last 25 years in order to further their stated goal (agenda) of getting rid of all privately owned guns in the US. If there were no grabbers 98% of all gun owners would not even think to correct the misuse of Assault Rifle. But thanks to them 98% of us feel we have to do so to try and slow the spread of the anti-gun agenda.

Did you honestly think we give a flying fark what these guns are called by the uninformed? Of course we don't. What we care about is not having our guns taken away and that is the only reason we do this.

bgilmore5:Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

Make comments? No, no need to be an expert or even a hobbyist, in fact you can no nothing at all if you want. But if you don't want to sound stupid and you want people to listen to you and take you seriously then you would be well served by gaining a reasonable familiarity with the subject.

Proposing new laws? No, no need to be an expert, but you should be well informed and have a firm grasp of the subject, and hire an expert to help out.

Fark It:Weird, I was responding to that idiot who said a 'child' discovered the rifle (muh children!). I accidentally the whole post somehow.

At least this idiot didn't 'accidentally the whole post somehow'. You seem careless. You probably shouldn't handle firearms, sharp objects, or drive. And as a childish name caller you go on the ignore list. Bye-bye!

JesseL:Publikwerks: And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.

Publikwerks:The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

So I suppose you believe a bullet is a magic item that stops an attacker immediately in their tracks if it so much as gets close to them, right? Here is a little info for you:

None of the following were people on PCP either. Officers I know personally have repeatedly said that is their biggest fear because they get unbelievable strength and don't feel pain.There are tons of stories like the following easily found, but since you know best, you probably won't bother looking into it.

4 minutes is a long time to have to try to fight back."The Aftermath:Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. Although Soulis could not have known it, Palmer was wanted for murder in a neighboring state."Source: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis- i nci

Trooper shot (hit) him 5 times with a .357 magnum. How many times did he miss? I guarantee that if you are getting attacked, your adrenaline is at insane levels and you are shaking. You are dodging and moving. Your attacker isn't standing there motionless. You will miss.http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-trooper-mark-hunter-coates

Kind of a long read, but his background is important regarding the topic:A little background for those of you who don't know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.

I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.

I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. I've worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and I'd make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events.

I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I've got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. I've won matches, and I've been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace.

I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level, and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. I've argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry.

Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I've heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

We should ban magazines over X number of shots!

I've seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that we've got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then he'll not be able to shoot as many people.

Wrong. And I'll break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesn't really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually-contrary to the movies-you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don't have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn't uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you're going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don't penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, "Darn, I wish I hadn't brought all that extra ammo."

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Now tactically, let's say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he's a complete idiot, he's not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He's picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don't for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They're just broken and evil.

In the cases that I'm aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. That's a bad assumption, and here's yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearm's forums. My Gunfight - "Thinking Outside Your Box" So that's awesome if it happens, but good luck with that.

Finally, let's look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That's it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn't so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn't run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I'm no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could've been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you're already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don't care.

Assault Weapons Ban, 1994-2004:A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[9] In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[10] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders

EyeballKid:So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

I'm not willing to give up my rights over the idea of some silly "possibility".

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?

Yup. And don't forget to only practice free speech using only your voice, handwritten notes on quill and parchment, and paper on old style printing presses. The founders weren't talking about the internet when they wrote the 1st ammendment, after all.

The government could ban the internet. Internet use is not protected under the first amendment.

FYI, free speech does actually mean something different today than when the constitution was written. Free speech was only intended to stop the government from stopping you before you spoke, it was perfectly OK to punish you after the fact. See, alien and sedition acts, Eugene Debs.

Frank N Stein:We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.

Funny you should mention that. I have a replica gladius hanging in my front room.Can't afford to have it sharpened yet.Only place in town that will do it charges 3-5 bucks a blade inch.Got a good point and will make a dandy club.

sambluesnark:Frank N Stein: We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.

Funny you should mention that. I have a replica gladius hanging in my front room.Can't afford to have it sharpened yet.Only place in town that will do it charges 3-5 bucks a blade inch.Got a good point and will make a dandy club.

How much did the gladius cost? Sounds like it shouldn't cost more than 60-70 bucks to sharpen.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

The problem is that gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith. Compromise is a two way street. Taking away my rights and taking a bit more of it down the road is not a compromise. In my home state of NY, a large swath of semiautomatic rifles were labelled assault weapons. For a stretch I couldn't legally load more than 7 rounds into my 10 round capacity magazines. NYC has started confiscating firearms from residents. Now the state is talking about banning "high power sniper rifles". How can the casual observer not state this is incrementalism at work?

You want compromise? You get universal background checks and I get a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. Both sides should walk away overjoyed and there would be no negative effect on crime.

I'll trade it all for one thing:

Government employees are equally subject to all laws applied to civilians , and police may not possess or use any arm or munition denied to the general populace.

umad:EyeballKid: umad: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

From 2006 to 2008, each year there have been approximately 5,100 pool- or spa-related submersion injuries treated at emergency departments and 383 pool- or spa-related deaths among children ages 14 and under.Children under 5 years of age represent a majority (76 percent) of reported fatalities and almost 80 percent of emergency department-treated submersion injuries.

redmid17:bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

Michelle Bachmann and creationists being on those committees is just as bad as who try to write gun laws with no knowledge or consultation of people who know about guns.

Exactly how much do I need to know about guns and gun related assessories before I can intelligently state "it should be against the law to leave your gun unsecured and unattended in public?"That is really the issue here, right - How responsible should we REQUIRE folks be with their guns?

Or does it make me a panty wetting liberal because I can't assemble a rifle while blindfolded?

RedT:redmid17: bgilmore5: Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

Michelle Bachmann and creationists being on those committees is just as bad as who try to write gun laws with no knowledge or consultation of people who know about guns.

Exactly how much do I need to know about guns and gun related assessories before I can intelligently state "it should be against the law to leave your gun unsecured and unattended in public?"That is really the issue here, right - How responsible should we REQUIRE folks be with their guns?

Or does it make me a panty wetting liberal because I can't assemble a rifle while blindfolded?

1) You'd do well to do read the rest of my posts in the thread2) This gun was not necessarily unsecured, but it was unattended. It was locked away, unloaded, and out of sight. I think it's worthy of a minor charge, community service and a fine, but there is definitely a limit on how responsible we can make people with inert guns -- no gun locks on inoperability without minors or prohibited persons in the house.